TWO CHEERS FOR EDDINGTON ON TRANSPORT

1 December 2006

Countryside campaigners CPRE [1] welcomed the publication today of the Eddington Transport Study. [2]

CPRE spokesman Peter Langley said: ‘There is much to welcome in this authoritative study, but proposals for a new transport planning system and for airport expansion are wide of the mark.’

CPRE supports Sir Rod Eddington’s endorsement of a national road pricing scheme. But it argues that any such scheme must be designed in such a way that it does not cause households and businesses to move out of town into the countryside in search of cheaper road travel.

In particular, CPRE welcomes:

• the support for a comprehensive assessment of the full range of economic, environmental and social impacts of transport policies, rather than a purely economic one, taking into account Sir Nicholas Stern’s recently published review of the economics of climate change;
• linked to that, the support for a national system of road pricing, which could bring large benefits and could also save 80% of road building;
• the emphasis on smaller-scale improvements to the existing transport network instead of grandiose and iconic large schemes. The Government must now review some of its large schemes such as major motorway widening; [3]
• the recognition that investment in public transport and cycling and walking has an important part to play;
• calls for more streamlined and effective transport planning at regional and sub-regional level.

With its heavy emphasis on investment in transport schemes within and between major cities, the study would appear to shun road building schemes in rural areas – which often cause major damage to scenery and wildlife as well as fuelling further growth in road traffic. [4]

But CPRE has major concerns about the Study’s proposal for inquiries into major transport schemes to be headed by panels of appointed experts who would make the final decision, fearing this could reduce the scope for public consultation.

CPRE also has concerns about the Study’s case for some airports to expand. In the UK, air travel is the fastest growing source of gases causing climate change. CPRE has long campaigned for the growth in aviation to be curbed, because of the widespread environmental damage done including rising emissions.

Our fear is that over-reliance on carbon trading schemes, as advocated in the Eddington Study, will enable the aviation industry to buy its way out while causing mounting environmental damage.

Peter Langley commented:

‘CPRE welcomes the sea change towards small schemes and away from grandiose ones, but this will only be achieved if environmentalists and local people have full access to the key decisions in the planning process.’

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Sir Max Hastings. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen.

2. The Eddington Transport Study, published by HM Treasury, 1 December 2006.

3. For example the widening of the M6 in Staffordshire and Cheshire which was announced earlier this year, would cost about £3 billion. This money could be better spent on a range of smaller schemes to improve the network.

4. Planned road schemes which directly threaten nationally designated landscapes include the 4.6 kilometre A354 Weymouth Relief Road through the Dorset Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – the new stretch of dual carriageway would also damage two nature reserves. Another damaging scheme is the 5.7 kilometre Mottram - Tintwistle bypass scheme which runs, in part, through the Peak District National Park and Green Belt. This would harm a woodland nature reserve and moorland and also cross several national trails, including the Pennine Way.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.